First Shots With 300 F/2.8L IS

The only other thing that was said...which I admit I don't understand the concept was to use POSITIVE exposure compensation (not negative which seems to make sense to me) to force your camera into making the shadows lighter while not blowing the highlights...

does this make sense to you??

calicokat wrote in post #2022036
Thanks for the comments. the exif was F/11, 1", ISO 50. I used a 4x Neutral Density Filter as well which cuts down 2 stops of light, hmmmm

yea, thats even more effective than a polarizer. you probably could have gotten away with a half second. other than that, stopped down a little more.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2022040
slower u mean right? Yea, thats what i was told at a photoshop seminar i took aswell (shoot to the hilights and correct in CRW).

Yeah, that's what I mean...told you I've only had one cup of coffee...

Peregrin wrote in post #2022045
The only other thing that was said...which I admit I don't understand the concept was to use POSITIVE exposure compensation (not negative which seems to make sense to me) to force your camera into making the shadows lighter while not blowing the highlights...

does this make sense to you??

not in the camera? you cant make the camera stop exposing one area while still exposing another to my knowledge?

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2022051
not in the camera? you cant make the camera stop exposing one area while still exposing another to my knowledge?

Yeah, that's what they said...in camera...boost the exposure comp...and force it to expose the shadows better by exposing for the highlights (w/+exposure comp). I read it in a mag too but it still doesn't make sense. I'm shooting a waterfall tomorrow though so I might try it.

Peregrin wrote in post #2022045
The only other thing that was said...which I admit I don't understand the concept was to use POSITIVE exposure compensation (not negative which seems to make sense to me) to force your camera into making the shadows lighter while not blowing the highlights...

does this make sense to you??

Yes it does, I do use +2/3 already though. Next time I am in Maui (early next year ) I will give this a try. I usually just try and get the waterfall looking nice and pretty and don't worry about the rest too much. And what does white water supposed to look like

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2022046
yea, thats even more effective than a polarizer. you probably could have gotten away with a half second. other than that, stopped down a little more.

Yeah, this particular fall was moving very fast, 1/4 second might have worked too

Here is another waterfall shot, does it have the same problem. I am not sure what people mean by water blown out, there is not much detail in flowing water to begin with

You know what I'm going to try next? (not tomorrow because there's no place to set up a tripod where I'm going to view the falls) Shooting falls both on fast and slow shutter speed and then using layers, blend the shots, so the highlights won't be blown (because I have a heck of a time getting it right) and it'll give them a high def. type of resolution.

I think the answer to these questions is simply, go back to Maui ASAP and practice
But seriously, bracketing exposures, shooting raw and trying all different kinds of shutters and picking the best later are the best things to do with waterfalls.

Peregrin wrote in post #2022078
You know what I'm going to try next? (not tomorrow because there's no place to set up a tripod where I'm going to view the falls) Shooting falls both on fast and slow shutter speed and then using layers, blend the shots, so the highlights won't be blown (because I have a heck of a time getting it right) and it'll give them a high def. type of resolution.

Is that the HDR thing I keep seeing that you are referring too

calicokat wrote in post #2022071
Here is another waterfall shot, does it have the same problem. I am not sure what people mean by water blown out, there is not much detail in flowing water to begin with

Wow that's beautiful too! They are saying it's "blown out" if there's a white area with no detail...doesn't matter if it's big or miniscule, if there's no detail they say "blown out". I think it's a catch all for finding something wrong with a photo...if it's in the critique section, people will be critical.

Peregrin wrote in post #2022059
Yeah, that's what they said...in camera...boost the exposure comp...and force it to expose the shadows better by exposing for the highlights (w/+exposure comp). I read it in a mag too but it still doesn't make sense. I'm shooting a waterfall tomorrow though so I might try it.

but wouldnt that just make the waterfall overexpose anyway?

calicokat wrote in post #2022071
Here is another waterfall shot, does it have the same problem. I am not sure what people mean by water blown out, there is not much detail in flowing water to begin with

i dont think it gets much better than that.

calicokat wrote in post #2022085
Is that the HDR thing I keep seeing that you are referring too

Yes, it's almost like doing a bracket shot but instead of changing the exposures for the 3 diff. ones, they use different shutter speeds to get (texture? almost a visible depth of field)...it's really cool.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2022089
but wouldnt that just make the waterfall overexpose anyway?

Don't cry Bill...
I don't know..that's why I'm going to try it....like I said...I'm willing to do what "they say" and see if it helps